Burden / standard of proof / Country of origin information (COI)

The Constitutional Court addressed its judgement E 3445/2021 (issued 30 September 2021) that an extreme volatility of the security situation in Afghanistan was to be assumed based on country information sheets on Afghanistan issued by the Austrian COI Unit on 11 June 2021 and 19 July 2021 at the date of the decision of the Federal Administrative Court on 29 July 2021. In addition, the widespread media coverage after 20 July 2021 (which was therefore available at the time of the decision of the Federal Administrative Court) lead to the same conclusion. The complainant would have therefor been exposed to a real danger of violation of his constitutional rights under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR if he were to return to Afghanistan. (see also E 3047/2021 issued 24 September 2021)

30 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Country of origin information (COI) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria

In its judgment E 3047/2021 issued 24 September 2021, the Constitutional Court ruled that based on the Austrian COI Unit’s (Staatendokumentation) country information sheet on Afghanistan dated 11 June 2021 , the risk of an armed conflict between the Taliban and government troops affecting the whole country should have been apparent to the Federal Administrative Court at the date of its decision on 1 July 2021. Thus, the risk of a serious threat to life or physical integrity as a result of arbitrary violence in the context of an internal conflict for members of the civilian population such as the complainant must have been clear to the Federal Administrative Court at the time of its decision. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court found that due to the widespread media coverage of the developments in Afghanistan, the Federal Administrative Court had to assume that the security situation in Afghanistan was to be classified as extremely volatile. It also reiterated that widespread media coverage must be considered notorious. The Constitutional Court therefore found that the Federal Administrative Court did not meet its obligation to investigate in detail the existence of a real risk of a violation of Art 2 or Art 3 ECHR if the complainant were to return to Afghanistan in view of the almost daily changing situation in the armed conflict between the Taliban and the Afghan government and its troops. The Federal Administrative Court had denied a military conflict in certain places, without considering the serious threat of an imminent significant deterioration of the security situation, that had in fact already partially occurred across the country and was possibly imminent in the places which the Federal Administrative Court considered an internal flight alternative for the complainant (namely Mazar-e Sharif and Herat). Since the Federal Administrative Court’s assumption of the complainant’s return situation in line with Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR was solely momentarily without considering the rapidly changing security situation in Afghanistan, its findings were found to be arbitrary by the Constitutional Court.

24 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Country of origin information (COI) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria

25 July 2012 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

18 May 2012 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - EU Qualification Directive - IDP camps - Internal armed conflict - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Internally displaced persons (IDPs) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Application for judicial review.

21 December 2010 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal - Complementary forms of protection - Country of origin information (COI) - EU Qualification Directive - Fresh / New claim - Internal armed conflict | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Heard at Field House on 15 July 2010.

21 October 2010 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Country of origin information (COI) - Forced labour - Internal armed conflict - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Security situation - Social group persecution - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Audience du 13 septembre 2010; Lecture du 4 octobre 2010. La décision du directeur général de l’OFPRA en date du 30 octobre 2009 est annulée; Le bénéfice de la protection subsidiaire est accordé à M; Le surplus des conclusions de la requête est rejeté; La présente décision sera notifiée à M. et au directeur général de l’OFPRA.

4 October 2010 | Judicial Body: France: Cour nationale du droit d'asile | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Right to seek asylum - Safe country of origin | Countries: Afghanistan - France

Audience du 2 septembre 2010, Lecture du 23 septembre 2010. La décision du directeur général de l’OFPRA en date du 9 décembre 2009 est annulée, Le bénéfice de la protection subsidiaire est accordé à M, Le surplus des conclusions de la requête est rejeté, La présente décision sera notifiée à M. et au directeur général de l’OFPRA.

26 September 2010 | Judicial Body: France: Cour nationale du droit d'asile | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Right to seek asylum - Safe country of origin | Countries: Afghanistan - France